Posted by tealady on March 29, 2006, at 0:02:40
In reply to Re: Sorry., posted by teejay on March 28, 2006, at 21:06:16
> > I, too, am against war. But when the war is between terrorists and a free Iraq, I'll choose to help the Iraqis.
> >
> > Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> >
> > God Bless America!
>
Nah, Iraq had to be freed from the Uraq'ies;-) kiddin
May I suggest ya ask anyone citizen of Iraq.Do ya reckon they begged the US to invade Iraq, blow up their buildings, kill a heap of em, imprison some more, maybe scare a few kids a little, and
1. grab most of the oil income (main reason for most wars is economic .. the profit to be made )
2. payback Saddam (remember the old e Bush) .. have to "get" Saddam back. This goes back to before the current Bush was first elected IMO.(and why I was so upset with his election)
back to payback for Saddam..
I thought I heard Bush mutter something along these lines on a late night radio show over here long time ago., but it was late at night and I was in bed half asleep.. (before the war began I think, which made me certain we'd have the war no matter what). It's on the net somewhere still probably, wish I had a tape of it..
3. payback for maybe making US govt. looking a bit like fools re Sept11th etc.. hence a huge show of strength and talk of terrorists
4. redefine what is and is not a war, so you can make your own rules as suits regarding treatment of prisoners, define what is and is not an invasion, define what is reconstruction and what is ripping a country of its income"Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq."
Yeah, did ya see some of the footage of the US liberation of some towns (shot by Hollywood and considered OK for the US censors(most footage was destroyed I think by censors).
Great pictures of before and after liberation of a town in Italy. Looked to me to be completely flattened after liberation. The Italians in that town .. funny I didn't see them jumping up and down and rejoicing, didn't see many wandering about at the end.
Teejay I watched a show in the past week on Egypt and the British PM in the 50's and 60's.. re Suez crisis. Documents been released now officially seem to "prove" it re Eden.
"AS IT HAPPENED - THE OTHER SIDE OF SUEZ
On 26 July 1956, Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt made a strategic move that caught the Western world by surprise. He nationalised the Suez Canal Company, precipitating what became known as the Suez Crisis - one of the biggest political stalemates of the century. The Other Side Of The Suez Crisis reveals, for the first time, the complexity of this historic story from the Egyptian and Russian perspective. Many critics believe that Anthony Eden, the British prime minister from 1955 to 1957, deeply resented President Nasser's championing of Egyptian independence. It is believed by some that Eden actively encouraged plots to fabricate dissent, turned a blind eye to several assassination attempts and eventually connived with the French and the Israelis to manufacture a 'war' as an excuse for sending in British troops to 'act as a buffer' between the Egyptians and the Israelis and protect Western interests as represented by the Suez Canal. The film looks at how Eden's actions were received by other countries such as the United States and the Soviet Union. What resulted from the Suez Crisis was a shift in US policy which saw them becoming actively involved in Middle East affairs for the first time"
There ya go, appears to some folk maybe that a PM ,Eden,(Britain) managed to fabricate reasons to invade Egypt (seems like another politicians nose was out of joint and wanted to have this show of strength thingy).But back then re Eden and Suea Crisis it didn't get far, as Russia(Kruschev) threatened a couple of atomic bombs or missiles or something on I think it was London and Paris?
If you want a war badly enough(for gain, payback etc).. its a common thing throughout history (and in prehistoric times too I guess:) You just have to convince your people its the "just" thing to do.
take the invasion of Britain by William the Conqueror (that was profitable and a payback for this nose out of joint phenomena;-)
Question for everyone:
What is your definition of a "just" war. (taking out self defense or defense of own country or defense of freindly country)..ie only the invading side.
Please define a "just" war, in terms of when it's just to invade another country.2nd part of question.. Say you can win a war as you have more power, money , weapons, people than the country you are attacking. If the war is able to defined as "just", how much "strength" is "justified".
eg. is it just to totally blast everyone building , kill every person, destroy the habitat theu chemical or atomic fallout
If not, what level of attack is "just" ?
Just enough to obtain control and still leaving something to plunder?.. or do you need to have this "show of strength" thingy ..
Is a show of strength a feel-good thing for the invaders?
Or does it hasten the end of the war? Did it?
to repeat "Thank God for the USA and President Bush, and for the courage, to free Iraq. We liberated France in WWII and now we liberate Iraq.
> >
> > God Bless America!"Much more pleasant things to think about. Cya everyone.
poster:tealady
thread:624297
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060322/msgs/625875.html